The Undergraduate Council elections are long over, and the new leadership is already in place. Nevertheless, we'd like to take a moment to reflect on last December's election process. The council's election commission should be lauded for their role in running a clean and fair election. Now is the time for the council to move forward to making sure that, within this stable framework, future elections can energize the campus electorate. This can be achieved by reforming the election rules in a few small ways.

The first and most glaring shortfall of the election rules is the miniscule $100 spending limit, which, combined with a "dollar-per-demerit" system, has left candidates running campaigns that have very limited impact on campus. This leaves campaigns unable to generate significant amounts of positive energy around their platforms. One solution would be simply doubling the spending limit, so that campaigns could reach more students. This investment is also justified by the fact that exciting campaigns inevitably generate interest for the council as a whole.

Even if the council doesn't double the spending limit next year, the least that can be done is to allow the presidential and vice-presidential candidates to exhaust their war chests separately. Currently, when candidates join a ticket, the expenditures of the joint campaign is deducted from budgets of both candidates, essentially penalizing a candidate for joining a ticket.

The point-deduction system for misplaced posters should also be reevaluated. Currently, if a candidate has 25 posters (of the hundreds that get hung each season) that are either covering that of another campaign, or are put up more than one time on a kiosk face or bulletin board, that candidate is disqualified from the race. The problem is that the rule does not acknowledge the fact that misplaced posters--especially those accidently misplaced by otherwise good-intentioned campaign volunteers--can be promptly removed without further damage to the election process. Such posters, unlike other campaign violations, do not constitute an "irreparable harm." Furthermore, the rule can also be exploited by other candidates, who might send workers out on a witchhunt for their opponents' postering violations.

This is not to say that fairness is not a priority of the election, but that tedious rules make for an election that unnecessarily stifles candidates' voices. Instead of a mandatory point-deduction, the council could give a small grace period for easily rectifiable violations such as posting errors. Nor does this preclude the option of penalizing candidates for repeated postering infractions.

Finally, it seems that some rules are meant to discourage innovation on the part of the participants. For example, candidates are barred from door-dropping campaign materials. Ironically, council candidates would distribute materials more pertinent to student life than the unwanted commercial solicitations distributed by Harvard Student Agencies.

The council's election commission did an admirable job last December to ensure that the election was fair. Nevertheless, there is still room for improvement. Generating broad-based enthusiasm for the council campaigns is one step toward revitalizing the council itself.